F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7836
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 20:48

It was not 20:2, but 24:0, 20:1, etc ... Big difference.



It's actually done better, but I need to find the reference.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 22:07

Hmm...., those antiquated F-15s seemed to have killed more than a couple of Rafales at Green Shield 2014:


"Two weeks into the exercise, the Saudis have grown into the Nancy environment and are giving the French a hard time. Camille Jolly, a weapons systems officer (‘wizzo’) from Nancy, flew against the Saudi pilots in the backseat of a Dassault Rafale B in the morning. “We were actually killed by them, but we did take out some of their aircraft too. I think the score was an equal 3-3.”


Going 3-3 against the Royal Saudi AF old out-dated Eagles..... doesn't sound like the canard wonder plane is invincible-



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-an ... le.330385/
http://airheadsfly.com/2014/04/15/greenshield2014/
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 22:25

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:If that was the case why did both SH and Typhoon score higher than the Danish F-16 (which have been updated continously and AFAIK has this capability)?


For example, because both the SH and Typhoon are probably more survivable than the current Danish F-16. You know, in order to release that GPS bomb/munition you'll likely have to face enemy threats (both from the ground and air).


loke wrote:Furthermore, why did they score much lower than the F-35 if all it took was to release a GPS guided munition!?

This does not seem very logical to me, to be honest.


I can give you not only one but three reasons:
1- A much better ability to perform BDA (Battle Damage Assessment) due to sensor fusion - for example with a pair of touches you can bring up a view of the target much quicker and easier than it's possible with the other 4/4.5th gen platforms.
2- STEALTH plus STEALTH and advanced sensors and sensor fusion. This makes the F-35 much more survivable and this reason alone should grant a quite/much bigger score. It also helps A LOT with point 1-
3- Sensor fusion enables to react much quicker and effectively against targets detected by other sources (and thus better retasking).

Makes sense now??

You are actually making my point!

My point is that contrary what you claimed in your previous post, other factors than just the capability to deliver GPS munitions are at play here.

I would also like to point out that your point about "survivability" may not play a significant role in the Danish effectiveness eval -- the reason why I believe this may be the case, is because they had a separate "survivability" eval in addition to the effectiveness. So it seems they evaluated each separately.

Interesting that you keep mention sensor fusion, by the way. This is one of the strong points of Rafale (according to several experts, including the Swiss professionals who evaluated the Rafale). Unlike us, they knew what they were doing and unlike us they had access to classified information.

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:Regarding Rafale and payload:

Rafale can carry 9,500kg externally on 14 pylons. AFAIK the SH can carry 8,050 kg on 11 pylons...


I've seen those values from Wikipedia but honestly I don't buy them. The Super Hornet is a considerably bigger and heavier plane than the Rafale.
For example according to the same wikipedia the Super Hornet has an empty weight of 14,552 kg while the Rafale as an empty weight of 9,850 Kg for the lighter variant (C) and 10,600 Kg for the heavier variant (M) and the Super Hornet is powered by 2 engines each rated at 13,000 lbf with Dry power while the Rafale is powered by 2 engines each rated at 11,250 lbf so it doesn't make sense that Rafale can carry more weapons in terms of weight compared to the Super Hornet. This is similar to someone saying that the Super Hornet can carry a heavier payload compared to the F-15E, which obviously would be false.

Then you have what is the theoretical "maximum payload weight" and an actual "maximum payload" which is limited to other factors such as actual pylon capability.
For example, the Rafale can carry a maximum load of 3 (three) 2000lb bombs while the Super Hornet can carry a maximum load of 4 (four) of such 2000lb bombs.

Or if you look for example at the GBU-12 500lb LGB, the Super Hornet can carry a maximum of 7 (seven) while the Rafale carries a maximum of 5 (five).

How often does the SH actually carry 4 2000lbs bombs? What else can it carry at the same time? What is the range?

How often does the SH actually carry 7 500 lbs bombs? What else can it carry at the same time? What is the range?

According to this (normally very well informed) blog the Rafale can actually carry at least 6 GBU-12; however it addition it can simultaneously carry 3 EFTs, 1 targeting pod, and 4 Mica a2a missiles.

http://rafalenews.blogspot.no/p/rafale- ... d-out.html (close air support #1)

The Rafale has 5 "wet" hardpoints and can carry up to 5 EFTs or other heavy load. Of course not all possible combinations have been cleared for use, I believe it costs money and time to approve a hardpoint for each combination of munition.

Here is one loadout that the Rafale has demonstrated:

* 6 AASM Hammer missiles
* 4 Mica missiles
* 2 Meteor missiles
* 3 2,000l EFTs

http://defense-update.com/20140127_rafa ... ation.html

Please note the combination a significant a2g load, significant a2a load, and 3 large EFTs, all carried by one Rafale.

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:The "FSO" of Rafale is quite interesting. AFAIK it will include not just IRST sensor but also a sensor in the optical wavelength, for long-range passive identification; as well as laser range-finding for air, ground and sea target.

Does the SH have anything comparable to the functionality of the Rafale FSO?


Sure but then again the IRST/FSO that you're taking about is mainly for Air-to-Air. It's usefulness in Air-to-Ground missions is at best questionable and so much that one of the main and recent Rafale upgrades was a new and more advanced EO targeting pod. If that IRST/FSO was so good or so usefull in Air-to-Ground missions why would the French invest in a new EO targeting pod in the first place?

First: This thread is not dedicated to a2g only; thus, it is highly relevant to also talk about a2a.

Second: The FSO system can also be used for a2g, if the Rafale does not happen to carry a targeting pod on that particular mission. Sometimes a mission can change unexpectedly.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 22:27

SpudmanWP wrote:It was not 20:2, but 24:0, 20:1, etc ... Big difference. It's [F-35] actually done better, but I need to find the reference.

There are a few references - some in the same articles - these are lowest at 15:1 in recent F-35 participation RED FLAGs:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=53254&p=390365&hilit=Flag+ratio#p390365
&
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=53818&p=387225&hilit=Flag+ratio#p387225
&
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=52626&p=375505&hilit=Flag+ratio#p375505

NOW the 20:1s claims: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53259&p=372834&hilit=Flag+ratio#p372834
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52723&p=368662&hilit=Flag+ratio#p368662
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53083&p=367543&hilit=Flag+ratio#p367543
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=366262&hilit=Flag+ratio#p366262

Here is a 24:1 claim in a fillum: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52238&p=376069&hilit=Flag+ratio#p376069
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52238&p=376066&hilit=Flag+ratio#p376066
&
BEST: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52795&p=363720&hilit=Flag+ratio#p363720

THERE ARE MANY MORE - search using FLAG + RATIO for more results of all kinds.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7836
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 22:36

^^ :notworthy:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 22:51

f-16adf wrote:Hmm...., those antiquated F-15s seemed to have killed more than a couple of Rafales at Green Shield 2014:


"Two weeks into the exercise, the Saudis have grown into the Nancy environment and are giving the French a hard time. Camille Jolly, a weapons systems officer (‘wizzo’) from Nancy, flew against the Saudi pilots in the backseat of a Dassault Rafale B in the morning. “We were actually killed by them, but we did take out some of their aircraft too. I think the score was an equal 3-3.”


Going 3-3 against the Royal Saudi AF old out-dated Eagles..... doesn't sound like the canard wonder plane is invincible-



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-an ... le.330385/
http://airheadsfly.com/2014/04/15/greenshield2014/

LOL!

There is a Swedish Gripen pilot that has flown against all modern US fighters apart from the F-22 & F-35 and he did not lose a single fight. Does not sound like any of the US wonder planes are invincible even when faced with outdated Gripen A or C...

On a more serious note I suggest those who are trying to interpret stories like the one above to read this:

There are some serious misconceptions out there about how air combat training is conducted so I've decided to write a post about how it really happens. Everybody seems to want to cite a particular exercise as proof of their point, when in reality, they have no contextual reference for these results they are referencing. Realize that I am writing from a USAF/USN/USMC/NATO perspective. If anyone else can provide some information about how it's done elsewhere, please chime in.

Air-to-air combat is an extremely complex and dynamic undertaking. The combination of speed and the ability to maneuver in three dimensions creates an environment that is constantly changing and rarely allows any of the participants to see and understand the entire picture at once. In order to be successful in this environment, participants must be highly skilled, (reasonably) intelligent individuals who fight in these types of battles regularly.

Fighter pilots from countries all over the world are expected to use hardware purchased with national treasure to defend their homeland against attackers or attack others as directed by their leaders. In order to effectively accomplish those missions, pilots must regularly train for air combat. Air combat skills are perishable and even the best pilots are not as keen as they might be if they haven't flown in a while especially when flying in large force exercises where one decision may be the difference between success and failure.

Definitions: Air Combat Training (ACT) is a term used to describe a battle between similar aircraft. If 2 F-16s are fighting against 2 other F-16s, this would be an ACT war, whereas 2 F-15s fighting 2 F-16s would be termed Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT).

When planning a DACT exercise, planners typically will build an Offensive Counterair (OCA) strike package and Defensive Counterair (DCA) package with appropriate aircraft - this was displayed in the Cope India exercise when a strike package consisting of SU-30s, Mirages, and Jaguars attacked a target defended by F-15s. Besides designating types of aircraft and missions, planners will also draw up objectives for the exercise. These objectives can be very specific or quite broad depending on the situation.

A broad objective may be stated as 'building trust between countries' or 'familiarize pilots with other air forces.' More specific objectives may be 'effectively integrate air forces for lane defense.' In order to accomplish these objectives, rules of engagement (ROE) will also be set.

ROE consist of weapons load, identification criteria, maneuvering limitations, tactics restrictions, and just about anything else you can think of. ROE can be pretty liberal or very restrictive, depending on the objectives, experience level of the pilots, or number and type of aircraft involved. If the objective is to 'build trust' between nations, you can bet your a$$ that the rules are going to be damn restrictive to try to ensure there will be no accidents/dangerous or stupid stunts that would embarrass one side or the other or result in needless loss of life. This is why briefings are conducted, and pickup games are not allowed. (This is also the reason why this article about the Typhoons getting bounced by F-15Es is absolute bollocks.) Regardless of the particular ROE established, somebody needs to be the bad guy.

In most exercises there will be a threat aircraft and weapons designated as the training aid for the other side. In U.S. exercises such as Red Flag, this will be something like a MiG-29 with aa-10s and aa-11s, and will be referred to as 'opfor' or 'red air.' Red air will usually consist of F-15s or F-16s (or whatever they can get) and will do their best to simulate that threat by limiting their radar modes, lock ranges, tactics, etc. 'Blue air' will fly with their normal weapons loadout and will normally not have any restrictions other than operating their systems in a training/peacetime mode. There may be other restrictions imposed based on the objectives. Typically, the threat capabilities will start out low with short range missiles and very benign tactics, then increase as the exercise continues, as long as the blue air players are learning something and they are ready to progress to the next level. If the blue air fighters are getting their butts handed to them, the threat level will remain low, but if they are doing well, the threat capability will increase so the training is useful.

Notice that the red air players are training aids. They are supposed to follow the rules and die like men when blue air is executing well. If, however, the blue air screws something up and they have an opportunity to kick some tail, they are expected to do so. Violating the ROE by using a capability that is restricted, shooting beyond a specified range, or not adhering to an established ID criteria is considered a training rule violation and is dealt with severely. Several pilots have been sent home from exercises and have even been reassigned because they didn't like to follow the rules.

By now it should becoming clear why one side or the other in these exercises often has a larger kill:loss ratio than the other. Red air is supposed to die even if there are more capable aircraft on the red side. This is how many of the 'surprising' results occur in large exercises the threat level is tailored to the training needs of the blue air so they can learn from their mistakes in the debrief.

When conducting the debrief, kills must be assessed in order to find out what really happened. In order to do this, pilots must review the recording of the mission so they can evaluate their targeting and weapons employment. Red and blue air will get together, exchange data, and together decide who shot who and when. This is often an inexact science, however, with ACMI monitoring and extensive recording equipment in the aircraft, it is getting better. With results in hand, the blue fighters can then determine what they did wrong, and how to do better next time. This training is very effective for the blue air, but it usually sucks for red. What about exercises with real threat aircraft like MiG-29s, MiG-25s, etc? This is obviously the best training there can be, however, there is a problem.

When participating in an international exercise, both sides are probably going to hold some information back. This is not a 'you show me yours, I'll show you mine' game. In many cases, the shot data/weapons performance is classified, and not releasable to those on the other side. This is exactly the case in Cope India 04.

How do you debrief an engagement when neither side wants to say what really happened? Nobody is going to walk into the debrief and say 'I shot that guy at this time and this range with this missile,' because they are basically giving away their capabilities. There are a couple of ways to deal with this, one of which is to not relay any of the shot information, but to merely say 'that guy is dead at this time.' In that situation, no information (other than the f-pole) is released to the other side. However, astute people on the other side can extrapolate the data and figure out approximately when the shot was fired and can have a pretty good idea as to the performance of the missile. The other thing you can do is to establish a theoretical missile, with a nominal range to be used by both sides. This levels the playing field and rewards the side which executes better, rather than the side with the longer range missiles.

Detailed assessments that would normally take place to validate shots can't/won't happen in an exercise like this, therefore the overall results are not really accurate. However, as you say, they most certainly will debrief to get some results regardless of the potential inaccuracies. How valid the results are depends on how the exercise was planned.

As you can see, the results of these exercises (especially those released to the public) are quite likely not accurate. And, for one side or the other to claim victory in one of these exercises is either dishonest or just plain ignorance. Normally, the results are released as a series of politically correct statements such as those we've seen by the authorities after Cope India. Both sides are happy, they learned a lot, and can't wait to do it again.

It should be noted that these types of exercises are planned many months in advance. A key part of the training syllabus is to agree on the types of scenarios to be performed during initial planning.

Most of the learning experience occurs on the ground, not in the air. The evolution from Air Tasking Order to Mission Planning/C3I/Asset Coordination to Aircraft Generation is where air battles are won or lost. The mechanics of flying airplanes and shooting off ordnance is icing on the cake.

I'm certainly not trying to stifle the spirited debate that goes on here. It's fun reading the arguments for and against various aircraft, however, be careful when you're quoting the results of some exercise when making your point!

I'm only saying that without details, all of this, "my airplane kicked your airplane's butt" is entertaining, but silly. One valuable part of the exercise is simply watching how the other side operates, what kind of tactics they use (they may have been "modified" along with the weapons), how they talk on the radio, etc. Obviously, the technology represented by the Su-30s is of great interest to the USAF also.

https://www.defencetalk.com/military/fo ... ers.12457/
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 22:57

And that is my point. All these jets have been killed by each other. F-22s have lost to SH and Talons. Eurofighters have lost to Italian and Turkish F-16s. Rafales have lost to Saudi F-15s, US Navy F-18s and Turkish F-16s. MLU Vipers have killed Gripens.

And on and on....


And I never said any of the US planes are wonder-planes. The US teen series are old and out dated. It is you euros that seem to have an inbuilt Canard defense mechanism, in that anyone who is critical of them. You must automatically come to their aid......
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 23:02

f-16adf wrote:And that is my point. All these jets have been killed by each other. F-22s have lost to SH and Talons. Eurofighters have lost to Italian and Turkish F-16s. Rafales have lost to Saudi F-15s, US Navy F-18s and Turkish F-16s. And on and on....

Yes but to the uninformed reader it may not have been very clear from your post.

I tried to make it a bit more clear to some of the readers that are very active in this very thread...
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7836
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 23:06

loke wrote:There is a Swedish Gripen pilot that has flown against all modern US fighters apart from the F-22 & F-35 and he did not lose a single fight. Does not sound like any of the US wonder planes are invincible even when faced with outdated Gripen A or C...


At least we know Swedish pilots have the best barracks... How else would they come up with dreams like these? :roll:

btw, Has a Gripen even been in a Red Flag (or other LFE) with F-22s or F-35s (on the Red side)?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 23:11

Here is a real knowledgeable person talking about 21st C Air Fighting with a FAMILY of Systems (System of Systems): :doh:

RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 23:17

And cheers for the Gripen pilot who accomplished that. But I was talking about Rafale here. The fact remains it is beatable.


And it is also funny that my French comrades always point to the Rafale killing F-22 video as proof to it being the greatest. Yet they seem to casually ignore when other jets (which are far inferior to the F-22) having had Rafales in their gunsights.






And nobody here knows what the ROE were in any of these circumstances-
Last edited by f-16adf on 14 Mar 2018, 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4708
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 03:27

f-16adf wrote:And cheers for the Gripen pilot who accomplished that. But I was talking about Rafale here. The fact remains it is beatable.


And it is also funny that my French comrades always point to the Rafale killing F-22 video as proof to it being the greatest. Yet they seem to casually ignore when other jets (which are far inferior to the F-22) having had Rafales in their gunsights.


Most "Air Exercises" that include the F-22 (or F-35) would have ROE that would highly favor the opposing force. So, to challenge them as much as possible. If, they didn't then who would want to fight them??? :shock:


So, it's hardly surprising that the opposing force would get a kill from time to time. :doh:
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 09:47

hornetfinn wrote:
loke wrote:3. Eurofighter complained about some other things, cannot remember much of their complaints but I think they asked why the Danes used the latest targeting (?) pod for the F-16 in their comparison, but not for the Typhoon.


3. Have not heard or seen such claims. Maybe you can find a reference to this as I can't.

I could not find the reference however they did ask about the pod:

Q13: Which were the reasons for the low ranking, including answers to the questions below:
• NTISR (Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance): was the use of a Litening IV Pod considered? If yes, why is the rating lower compared to competitors?
• DCA (Defensive Counter Air): what is the reason for the lower rating compared to JSF?
• SCAR (Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance): what is the reason for Eurofighter Typhoon being rated lower than F-16?


http://nytkampfly.dk/wp-content/uploads ... 240516.pdf
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 09:54

ricnunes wrote:From what I've read the RBE2 AA radar has something like 800-odd TR modules while the APG-79 has something like 1300-odd TR modules which IMO seems to be quite a big difference I must say.

RBE2 AA has "more than 1,000" TR modules:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sp ... ox3_11.pdf
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 519
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 09:59

SpudmanWP wrote:
loke wrote:There is a Swedish Gripen pilot that has flown against all modern US fighters apart from the F-22 & F-35 and he did not lose a single fight. Does not sound like any of the US wonder planes are invincible even when faced with outdated Gripen A or C...


At least we know Swedish pilots have the best barracks... How else would they come up with dreams like these? :roll:

He was not dreaming, he is a well known and well respected blogger (Wiseman). If he says it's so then I tend to believe him...

Note he did not say anything about the actual performance of each jet, or how others had fared, just that he had never been beaten while flying Gripen against US a/c...

As I also pointed out in the posting above such statements are not really that interesting since the details of the exercise is not known.

It probably says something about the pilot, and perhaps demonstrates the big egos of fighter pilots :wink:

Spud where is your sense of humor?

Edit: I found the source -- he was talking specifically about "kurvstrid" which from the context seems to be "dog fight" in English:

https://www.expressen.se/kronikorer/car ... gun-fight/
Last edited by loke on 14 Mar 2018, 10:03, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests